This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The episode of "Jesus healing the bleeding woman" brings up the issue of Christianity and fringed garments because of the use of a word generally translated into English "fringe" as used by the account of the Gospel of Matthew. I'm not saying this should be a major point of discussion in this article, but why do editors continue to think there should be no discussion of this issue or not even a link to the discussion of this issue here? Why the need to dumb down and censor wikipedia? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There was no "dumbing down" or censorship. When you first added the sentence, I thought "touched his cloak", "touched the fringe of his cloak", what's the difference? If someone touches the edge of my jacket, it is still touching my jacket. No explanation on the significance of the fringe of the cloak was provided. Therefore, as it was originally worded, the addition of "fringe of cloak" was redundant and unnecessary. With the wiki-link to Christianity and fringed garments, I left it alone. The linked article contains at last provides some explanation, although a fairly weak one in my opinion, as to why the fringe in Matthew's account deserved some mention. For the article to be complete, there should be an explanation as to why the fringe of the cloak was significant in the text of this article. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Really a minor detail in the article, either say. History2007 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a "fringe" doesn't seem that significant, but then why would Matthew and Luke specify a "fringe"? If the "fringe" is really a tzitzit, that is very significant to a difference between Greeks and Jews in the first century. Read the wikipedia article on tzitzits and you should be able to see it's not just a "fringe". Or google the term. Or google tzitzits and christianity. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to google any of it, that's why I'm reading the Wikipedia article. Look, I didn't know why the Gospels would mention the fringe, because it didn't seem that significant. You can't just make an assertion, and assume the significance is obvious. If you had asked me what fringe was earlier, I would have said it was a fashion choice in the 1980s. But more information was added about the tzitzit, and it's good now. It explains why the old lady went for the fringe of his cloak: She thought that's where Jesus' magic powers were stored. And she was right. So relax, I don't know why you're still worked up over this. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)